internet service to underserved communities. mr. president, the mobile now act is an example of what is possible when members put aside their partisan differences and work together to come up with common sense proposals to spur economic growth. in addition to the provisions senator nelson and i wrote, mobile now includes all or part of six other bills which represent work of senators booker, daines, fischer, gardner, klobuchar, manchin, moran, rubio, schatz and udall. we also adopted important amendments from senators heller and peters. even the chairman and ranking member of the senate environment and public works committee, senator inhofe, as well as a long-time former member of the commerce committee, senator boxer, made key contributions to the bill's did once section. the mobile now act would not have been possible without the collaboration of these senators.

and so it's my hope, mr. president, that this spirit of bipartisanship will also carry over to the commerce committee's efforts to reauthorize the federal communications commission. compared to other federal agencies, the f.c.c. is relatively small, but as the regulator of the communications and technology industries, both of which are central to america's modern economy, the commission has significant influence over the treks of -- direction of our country. given the importance of the f.c.c., my colleagues might be surprised to learn the congress has not reauthorized it in more than a quarter century. you have to go back to 1990, mr. president, to find the last time that the f.c.c., the federal communications commission, was reauthorized. the work of the f.c.c. has continued during this period, of course, but reauthorizing this agency every few years ensures that congress will be able to make sure that the f.c.c. has all the tools it needs to keep up with our rapidly changing digital landscape.

26 years ago, i think it is safe to say none of us in this chamber knew anything about the web. let alone about smartphones or streaming video. since then, the communications landscape has been fundamentally transformed by digital technology, mobile services and the internet. yet the f.c.c. in that entire time has gone unauthorized, making it the oldest expired authorization in the commerce committee's broad jurisdiction. mr. president, i hope that we can change that. on monday, i introduced the f.c.c. reauthorization act of 2016, which includes a handful of noncontroversial good government reforms to go with a two-year reauthorization window. by restarting the f.c.c.'s regular authorization cycle, the bill will ensure that necessary congressional oversight of the f.c.c.'s budget procedures occur routinely.

as indicated by the f.c.c. commissioners themselves at our oversight hearing last week, the consistent legislative reauthorization cross will produce a more responsible and a more productive relationship between congress and the commission. this will result in better outcomes for both consumers and the rapidly growing broadband based economy. mr. president, telecom policy was once considered to be one of the least partisan issues in congress. while the campaign for net neutrality has certainly changed the political playing field over the last decade, i believe there is still a lot of room for bipartisanship on tech and telecommunications issues. the mobile now act and the f.c.c. reauthorization act are two bills that can make a real difference, and i look forward to working with my colleagues in the commerce committee and in the full senate to pass both of these bills in the coming months. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. blunt: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: i request permission to speak for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. blunt: mr. president, today the senate is taking a second step to deal with the public health crisis that's destroying lives and damaging communities across the nation. the epidemic of opioid and heroin abuse. step one late last year was to reduce spending in other programs and increase dollars available to deal with this addiction. an estimated 1.9 million american adults have an opioid use addiction or disorder related to prescription drug pain relievers. another 586,000 have an opioid use disorder related to heroin.

2.5 million americans are dealing with this problem. our nation's veterans, mr. president, are particularly at risk for developing a dependency on opioids. a study published in 2014 found a high prevalence of chronic pain among veterans because of their service. this was -- the chronic pain among veterans was 44% compared to 26% in the general public and a higher prevalence of opioid use at 15.1% in the u.s. military after a combat deployment, after possible injuries in training, injuries from an i.e.d. attack compared to just 4% in the general public. in 2014, more than a thousand missourians died from an opioid overdose. in st. louis alone, deaths

related to opioid abuse have increased nearly three times since 2007. member after member have come to the floor just as they came to me last year as the chairman of the funding committee for health and human services and explained the problem -- what a problem this is in their state. the majority leader made a point to me the other day that in kentucky, more people died last year from -- from drug overdose than died from car accidents. according to the centers for disease control and prevention, 44 people every day die from an overdose of opioid pain relievers. 78 people die every day from a combination of pain reliever overdose or heroin overdose and many times those prescription opioids have been the pathway to

heroin. deaths from prescription opioids have quadrupled in the past 14 years. these are stunning statistics. the center for disease control has rightly labeled this an epidemic. this should get a good vote on the senate floor today or tomorrow, but just because it gets a good vote doesn't mean it wasn't an important debate to have. just because it's a good vote and it's better funded than it has been in the past doesn't mean the senate and the house don't need to weigh in and say here's more specific ability to deal with these problems in new ways. the good news is that addiction is a treatable disease. those who received treatment can recover and go on to lead full, healthy and productive lives. in missouri, 72% of the individuals who had gone through our state's opioid treatment program in random tests test

drug free. the problem with addiction is that only about 10% of individuals that are battling addiction, drug addiction, receive treatment. that's why i'm proud to be a cosponsor of this bill. that's why it's important that we commit ourselves to win the fight against addiction, and we need to make sure that all the stakeholders are involved. first responders, if you are a first responder attached to a fire department, for instance, the odds are that there are three -- you are going to respond to three times as many drug overdoses as you do to fires. so whether it's first responders, paramedics, the law enforcement community, we need to use all of our resources to try to be sure that we're doing what needs to be done here. the comprehensive addiction and recovery act that we're debating provides grants from multiple government agencies to encourage

state and local communities to pursue strategies that we know work, the only thing you have to do is be sure and implement those strategies. the bill expands the educational efforts to understand addiction as a chronic illness that promotes treatment and recovery and prevents opioid abuse from going forward. the bill also expands resources to identify and treat the incarcerated population suffering from addiction disorders with evidence-based treatment. finally, it expands disposal sites for unwanted prescription medications to keep them out of the hands of children and adolescents. way too many unused pain killers are still in people's medicine cabinets or their dresser drawer waiting for somebody else to find them, and once they know they're there, to find them again. this bill represents a strong bipartisan effort to address

this epidemic. i filed two amendments that i think will improve the bill. i hope to see them in the manager's package. the first amendment would just simply expand the efforts that we have already made in a bill that senator stabenow and i introduced a couple of years ago and got a huge -- significant pilot project in that excellence in mental health act. what that does is provide 24-hour access for people living with behavioral health issues, with mental health issues, and that would include substance abuse disorder. excellence in mental health creates a demonstration program that really just simply in the right kind of facilities requires that mental health is dealt with like all other health, that behavioral health is dealt with like all other health. when we started that debate, there was a belief that no more than 20 states would implement excellence in mental health, if

every state in the country was allowed to do it if they wanted to. we now have 24 states who have applied to be one of the eight state pilots. the administration said why don't we increase the eight states to 14 states. we have an amendment to this bill that would say let's go ahead and increase the 14 states to all 24 states, because not only is this the right thing to do, but what these states will find out is when you deal with mental health like all other health you probably save money because the other health issues that people with behavioral health issues have are so much more easily dealt with. it's been long said that we have really turned over in an outrageous way the mental health obligations of our society to the local mr. president and --

the local police department and the emergency room. that is no way to do this, it is no way to solve this problem. we are about 50 years behind, and we're beginning now to catch up in the ways we should. i also filed an amendment to authorize the department of health and human services to use telehealth to allow this program to work more effectively, to allow telehealth to be one of the specifically reimbursable opportunities here. according to the center for disease control, individuals in rural communities are more likely -- not as likely, not less likely. are more likely to overdose on prescription pain killers than people in the cities, people in urban areas. in fact, death rates from overdoses in rural areas now greatly outpace the rate in large metropolitan areas which historically had higher rates. so what do you do to connect those individuals with the kind

of help they might need on a basis that they can turn to that help when they need to? one way to do that certainly is telehealth treatment options. telehealth allows individuals in rural or medically underserved areas, many of whom just simply don't have other treatment options, to receive the care they need, to receive the attention their issue needs remotely. additionally, telehealth can be an important component in ensuring that those patients receiving treatment from pain management use opioids effectively and appropriately and don't get started down the wrong path in the wrong way. july, 2014, the "journal of the american medical association" published a study that followed patients who reported moderate to intense chronic musculoskeletal pain. of the 250 patients in the

study, half received the normal standard of care and half received a year of telephone monitoring in addition to normal care. patients who are monitored via telehealth were twice as likely to report less pain after 12 months. having somebody to talk to, being able to ask a question about whether you should increase the medicine because your pain is worse that day, researchers have clearly noted that fewer telehealth patients started taking or escalating doses of opioids that people who were simply taking medicine on their own. telehealth holds promise in lots of areas. i believe this happens to be one of them. as chairman of the labor-health and human services appropriation subcommittee, i was proud to see us increase funding, a 284% increase. and i i'll say again we did that by cutting funding in other areas. one of the things the government

has to start doing is to truly prioritize it. if everything's a priority, nothing is a priority. today with this piece of legislation, the senate's telling our friends on the other side of the capitol and around the country that this is an epidemic we intend to deal with. i look forward to the continuation of this debate, the end of this debate and passing this bill. so thank you, mr. president. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: i ask consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to speak about bob lessonson, a retired -- bob levenson, a retired f.b.i. agent who nine years ago today disappeared in iran. he was on the tourist island of kisch. it's a little island off the coast of iran. it is in iranian territory.

it is in the persian gulf. it is just a few minutes' flight from dubai. bob levenson was there, conflict ing information. but in the process of checking out from his hotel and getting in a cab and going to the airport to return i think to dubai, he disappeared nine years ago today. there is a lot of mystery in the disappearance, and there is a lot of mystery in what has happened ever since. there's a mystery as to why the f.b.i. at about -- shortly after

his disappearance was somewhat lackadaisical about pursuing it. there is a mystery of why the c.i.a. was not coordinating with the f.b.i. in pursuing vigorous ly the disappearance of bob. there is no mystery in the fact that finally the two agencies got their act together and started vigorously trying to pursue, and i want to give great credit to the agency that they tried to get to the bottom of it, but that has led us nowhere,

and here we are nine years later. it is particularly troubling to all of us, including all of our negotiating team for the iranian nuclear agreement, because at every meeting, both high level and low level, at the direction of our secretary of state first hillary clinton and then john kerry, over and over it was brought up to the iranian government. this senator being the senator from florida where a life and seven -- where a wife and seven children are left behind. christine levinson who i have met with many times, her sons

and daughters. most recently, both christine and her son, as they plead for help, just any information. now, about five years ago, there was proof of life. and it was a video, and bob is looking very gaunt. he had been gone several years at this point, and he is pleading don't forget him. sometime after that but within a year, the last proof of life is a photograph showing an even more dissipated bob with a huge beard, unkempt hair.

again, the picture says all you need to know. why is he being left behind? and here nine years later supposedly we don't know anything. this senator on behalf of christine and her family went years ago to the iranian mission at the united nations, the only place that iran had an ambassador here in the u.s., since we do not have diplomatic relations, and made the case on a humanitarian grounds. that case has been made over and over and over, including directly with the foreign minister zarif and the new

iranian ambassador last september in a meeting of a handful of us senators on behalf of all of those who have been kept by iran. subsequently those had been released. the fellow from michigan, the former marine, and so forth that you know about. but nothing about bob levinson. and, of course, in the government of iran, they always say, we don't know anything about him. oh, we thought he was in pakistan. and those are always the answers but he disappeared in iran and with the very strict

state-controlled iranian security apparatus, obviously they know what happened and they certainly today, nine years later should know what happened, or they at least have the capacity to be able to find out what happened to bob levinson and the rest of us keep searching every to believe way. a couple of years ago it became apparent to this senator that associated press was about to publish a story talking about bob levinson's clandestine activities. this senator called the executive editor and pled that

they not publish the story, that they do what the responsible "new york times" had done. their investigative reporter, barry meyer, sat on the story for over three years knowing that if the story were published, what was going to be published about clandestine activities could jeopardize bob's life. but to no avail associated press executive editor said to this senator, well, they already know this. my pleading to them was that no and they went ahead and published the article.

i vigorously disagree with associated press' conclusions and i think that that jeopardized bob's wherewithal as well as his safety. here we are several years later, nine years after the disappearance, and nothing about bob levinson. so it is the conclusion of this senator that if the government of iran, namely the president rouhani as told to us by his foreign minister zarif do not know anything about it, well somebody in iran does. and maybe that tells us something about iranian society and the iranian government that there are these different power

centers, and one being the revolutionary guard and the exclusive quds force, but there's one person that's over all of this in iran, and that's the supreme leader and he should know. and all the pleas that have been made on the basis of a humanitarian plea for a family of a wife and seven children, thus far they have been ignored. so this brings me to the next point. according to "the new york times", its investigative reporter barry meyer, a meeting took place in 2011 in paris in the iranian embassy with the

iranian ambassador by a group of private american citizens who were doing what they could to facilitate the location of bob or any information about bob and the iranian ambassador told them that, yes, iran had bob levinson this is according to a story published in "the new york times" by barry meyer a few months ago. i called barry meyer and i said, are you sure of your facts? and he said yes. and so this senator called one of the people that was associated with this article of the private citizens, and that

person when i met with him confirmed that what "the new york times" had published was accurate and true and in fact that the f.b.i. had been called and the f.b.i. had met with representatives of the iranian embassy in paris right across the street from that embassy in a cafe in paris. so then this senator calls the former deputy director of the f.b.i., since retired, a man of impeccable reputation, sean joyce who had spearheaded before

he was deputy director, had spearheaded the efforts on trying to find bob levinson and continued that in his new role as the number two in the fin -- two in the f.b.i. and just last week this senator talked to sean joyce and sean joyce said he didn't know anything about this. well, if an investigative reporter has found this, indeed it's been confirmed by people who were there or knew of that meeting and at the time 2011, the top guy in the f.b.i. who is spearheading the efforts to try to get bob levinson, a former f.b.i. agent, doesn't know about

it, what does this suggest? it suggests there's a huge disconnect in the f.b.i. which leads this senator who has been on this case for nine years on behalf of a grieving wife and seven children to wonder what in the world is going on. but all of that until this turmoil is sorted out, the bottom line is we want bob levinson home for his family for humanitarian reasons. i know john kerry is doing all he can, but we've got to find

another way to get to the supreme leader. maybe it's through some of these private contacts, but why has that not been coordinated. i know the white house is involved in this, but do they know about that 2011 meeting. and if f.b.i. agents were there on the case, why was the white house not informed along with the leadership of the f.b.i.? something is terribly amiss, and we need to get to the bottom of it. and sadly, mr. president, on this ninth year of bob levinson, a patriotic american having

disappeared, poof, on the way to the airport in kish island, iran, sadly nine years later no information about bringing bob levinson home. mr. president, to the president of the united states, to the secretary of state, to the head of the f.b.i., to the head of all of our alphabet agencies, it's time to get the information about bob and bring him home. mr. president, i yield the floor . i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. lang lapping i would like to ask for -- mr. lankford: i would like to ask for the quorum call to be vitiated. officer withouthe presiding offt objection.

morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 52, which the clerk will report. the clerk: a bill to authorize the attorney general to addressd grants toaddress opioid and heroin ause. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time between the two managers will be divided. mr. lankford: the supreme court not only lost one of its justices. our nation lost a true giant. justice scalia was described as extraordinary, treasured and a stylistic genius. beyond his unbeaivering dedication of upholding the constitution, justice scalia was wholeheartedly committed to his family. avenues hurricanes father of nine, grandfather to 36 grandchildren. his son paul said during his whomly that god blessed dad with a love for his feavment he was the father that god gave us for

the great adventure of family life. he loved us and sought to show that love and sought to share the blessing of the faith he treasured and he gave us one another, to have each other for support. it is the greatest wealth apparent t parents can bestow. right now we're particularly grateful for it. justice scalia was nominated to the supreme court by president reagan, confirmed by the senate in a unanimous vote. while his time on the court led to criticism of his legal opinions, he remained respected by his colleagues, even those of the opposite end of the judicial spectrum. this is a sign of true character to have the ability to have an open, honest debate about a particular issue while respecting the individual person holding an opinion different from your own. justice scalia said "i attack ideas. i don't attack people. and some very good people have some very bad ideas." and if you can't separate the two you've got to get another day job." the sentiment was best portrayed through his friendship with

justice ginsburg. one of her -- as one of her friends, she said, we're different, but we are one. different our interpretation of written text. one in our reverence for the constitution and the institution we serve. from our years together on the d.c. circuit we were best buddies. we disagreed now and then but when i wrote for the court and received a scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial sicklation. justice fisca scalia was known s wit and sarcasm. referring to interpretations of his colleagues as jiggerty pokerry. yet it was the same criticisms that justice ginsburg said nailed the weak spots in her opinions and gave her what she needed to strengthen her rise. justice scalia represented a consistent constitutional voice on the court. just as the constitution is the pillar of our legal system, so

too was his affirmation of this foundation document of our nation. he said it is an enduring constitution that i want to defend. what did the words mean to the people who ratified the bill of rights or who ratified the constitution as opposed to what do people today would like. as justice kennedy said, in years to come, any history of the supreme court will and must recount the wisdom, scholarship, and technical brilliance of justice scalia and what he brought to the court. his insistence on demanding standards shaped the work of the court in its private discussions, oral argumented and written opinions. yet these historic achievements are all the more impressive and compelling because of the foundation of justice scalia's jurisprudence. the driving force in all of his work and his powerful personality were shaped by an unyielding commitment to the constitution of the united states as the highest ethical and moral standards. with justice scalia's pass, we have a vacancy on the court to fill. the question is, when?

i would submit, with only months left until the presidential election, we should let the people decide. i've heard over and over again for the past seven years that elections have consequences. but apparently some people seem to only think elections have consequences on presidential elections. the american people elected a brand-new senate in 2014 because of her incredible frustration with the operation of the previous senate and because of the direction that we're now heading under this president. i've heard this argument for years. the president should be able to do whatever he wants. he is the president. but may i remind everyone of a document in our national archives called the united states constitution that gives divided power to our nation. president is not over the senate, not over the house and is not over the supreme court. the hyperbole of this has been overwhelming to me in the debate of the past few weeks. i have heard that unless we replace justice scalia right

now, we will shut down the court. i have heard on this floor people call that if we don't replace justice scalia immediately, it is dangerous, it is unprecedented, it is unheard of. i have heard, do your job. a failure to do your duty. i even heard one senator say, the constitution says the president shall appoint and the constitution says the senate shall consent. well, let me show you article 2, section 2, of the constitution where that comes up. it says "the president shall have power and by and with the advice and consent of the senate to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators prengts concur and he shall nominate." now, the president shall nominate. that's his constitutional responsibility. but it is not the constitutional responsibility. it never says the senate shall give consent to the president. why? because the constitution gives the role of selecting the supreme court nominee into a 50/50 responsibility between the

united states and the president of the united states. the president shall nominate. that is his responsibility. but that only moves forward with the advice and consent of the united states senate. there's no shall give consent. there's no requirement of how it moves. in fact, alexander hamilton in "the federalist" papers discussing this exact issue said the ordinary power of appointment is confided to the president and the senate jointly. this is a 50/50 agreement. and what we're facing right now are incredible attacks on the chairman of the judiciary because he dares to do what vice president biden, what senator schumer, and senator reid recommended years ago. i even heard that we shouldn't listen to the words of vice president biden. i would understand why people would say that because p when you go back to when he was chair of the judiciary in the same

spot chairman grassley is in now, this is what senator biden said. senator biden, chairman of the judiciary, arguing on this same issue said, "arguing from a constitutional history and senate press dernghts i want to address one question and one question only. what are the rights and duties of the senate in considering nominees to the supreme court? some argue that the senate should defer to the president in the selection process. they argue that any nominee who meets the narrow standards of legal distinction, high moral character and judicial temperament is expwield to be confirmed in the senate without further question. parentally, there are some in this body and outside this body who share that view. i stand here today to argue the opposite proposition." this is from vice president biden. he stated at that time, "we have quashed the myth that the senate must defer to a presidential choice of a supreme court justice. the men and women at the apex of the independent third branch of government. can our supreme court nomination

and confirmation process so racked by discord and bitterness be repaired in a presidential election year? vice president as senator biden said, "history teaches us that this is extremely unlikely. some of our nation's most bitter and heated confirmation fights have come in presidential election years. the senate, too, mr. president, must confirm how it would respond to a supreme court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. vice president biden at that time said this. "it is my view that if the president goes the way of presidents fillmore and johnson and presses an election-year nomination, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over." saying instead it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way and its action of the supreme court nomination must be put off until after the campaign

season is over. that is what is fair to the nominee and central to the process. otherwise, it seems to me, mr. president, we will be in deep trouble as an institution." this past week senator reid came to the floor to discuss senator grassley and what he's doing, exactly what then-senator bind -- then-senator biden recommended be done. "last thursday, the senior senator from iowaaddresse -- iod cpac. the chairman of the judiciary is suggesting that we reevaluate the founding fathers work reevaluate the constitution of the united states and change the constitution of the united states. why is senator grassley debating what the sture makes clear? the senate must provide its

advice and consent on nominees appointed by the president to the supreme court. think of the irony. justice scalia was a strict constitutionalist. yet noi in the weeks following his -- yet now in the weeks following his death, senator grassley wanted to throw out the constitution. that's what senator reid said this week. let's look what senator reid said in 2005 on this exact same issue. in 2005 on this floor, senator reid said, "the president of the united states has joined in the fray and become the latest to rewrite the constitution and reinvent reality." this is speaking of president bush at the time. senator reid continued, "speaking to fellow republicans, on tuesday night, two days ago he said that the senate has a duty to promptly consider each nominee on the senate floor discuss and debate their qualifications and then give them an up-or-down vote that they deserve. referring to the president's duties, duty to whom? the duties of the senate -- this is from senator reid? 2005 -- "the duties of the

senate are set forth in the u.s. constitution. nowhere in that document does this say the senate has a duty to give presidential appointees a vote. the fact was even acknowledged by the majority leader that a vote is not required. senator byrd has the majority leader. the answer was no. senator frist was candid. the answer was no. the language wag not there. senator frist said. he is correct. senators should read the same copy of the constitution senator frist had memorized. continuing what senator reid said. "it is clear that the president misunderstands the meaning of advise and consent clause because that's not how america works. national is not a ub arer stamping for -- the senate not a rubber stamp for the executive branch." hearlier this week senator reid chastised senator grassley saying he wants to rewrite the constitution.

in 2005 senator reid stood on this in regard and encouraged all members to read the constitution and that it nowhere requires that we have to take an up-or-down vote. so i don't know which one to take on this. the current statements from senator reid or the previous statements from senator reid because they're in direct contradistinction. senator schumer, july 27, 2007, said this speaking of the last 18 months of president bush's term as president. "for the rest of this president's term and if there is another republican elected with the same selection criteria, let me say this. we should reverse the presumption of confirmation. the supreme court is dangerously out of balance. we cannot afford to see justice stevens reese placed by another roberts or ginsburg replaced by an alito. given the track record of this president, at least i will recommend 10 my colleagues that we should not confirm a supreme court nominee except in extraordinary circumstances."

i've also heard, don't look at the worded but the actions. senator reid, senator schumer, when he was here, senator barack obama, and senator biden have all filibustered supreme court nominees when they were senators. all four of them have. suddenly now this is a dangerous idea that will shut down justice and is completely unconstitutional and shouts of do your job come from the same senate leaders who block untold nominations from republican presidents and didn't allow amendments on basic bills. there's a lot of emotion in this body; i get that. there's a lot of politics in this process. i would hope to bring some facts to light and to turn down the hyperbole and all the rhetoric. so let me bring some basic facts to this. the last time a supreme court vacancy arose in an election year and the senate approved a

new appointee to the court in that same year was 1932. since there's no nominee right now, it would not be possible to fill the vacancy in time for that individual to hear cases in the spring session of the supreme court, which means any nomination selected now would only be able to serve and hear gawments in the fall -- gawments in the fall which is a much shorter session of the supreme court before this president actually leaves. we're talking about the final session at the end of this fall, a very few number of cases. justice stephen breyer a few weeks ago said about the passing of justice scalia, "we'll miss him but we'll do our work. for the most part it won't change." the supreme court is open and is working this week. in fact, the court hasn't halted at all. the court has heard ten cases already since justice scalia's

passing and they're continuing to release decisions. it's a myth you have to have an uneven number of justices for the supreme court to work. in the past six years 80% of the cases were decided 6-3 or greater. so it's a small minority of the cases that ever get to a 5-4 decision and we don't know that that 5-4 would not end up being 5-3 at this point. eight members can operate the court. in fact, the constitution doesn't even give a specific number to the justices. it's always been a decision of the president and the congress together how many justices are on the supreme court. the first congress, for example, enacted the judiciary act of 1789 which stated the supreme court consists of chief justice and five soarkt -- associate justices. the size varied during the 19th century with the courts shrinking to five justice for awhile growing to as large as ten justices in 1863. then in 1869 congress changed

the number to nine where it has remained. but it doesn't need nine justices to decide a case. congress has established the quorum requirements to be only six. the court ends in a tie decision of 4-4 or in the case of six justices 3-3. the court will not write an opinion or affirm the lower court or ask for reargument of the case. in other words, the court is already set up to function and is functioning and it will continue to function with eight people. i would say what is really happening is the democrats who implemented the nuclear option, while they were leaving the senate and packed all the lower courts, urgently want to be able to pack the supreme court as well. that will not happen. we will also not allow a recess appointment.

that has been floated multiple times in the media. the president will do a recess appointment and go around us. the senate chooses when the senate is in recess. not the president. so we can do this. we can remain in continuous session without recess to prevent a recess appointment by this president through the rest of this year. i and many of my republican colleagues have already agreed to be in washington every three days for the rest of this year to gavel in this body in pro forma session so that this president cannot put in a recess appointment judge. ironically enough, this right of the senate was just affirmed by the supreme court just a few years ago by a 9-0 ruling when this president tried to force in new members of the national labor relations board through a recess appointment, and this supreme court kicked those out saying the president cannot choose when the senate is in recess.

our nation faces really big issues, accelerating debt, threats from terrorism, major health care reform issues. this is a moment when the people of the united states should speak about the direction of our nation. we are still a nation of the people, by the people, for the people. and for the next president and for the next supreme court nomination, we should let the people decide. with that, i yield the floor. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana mr. vitter: mr. president, if any quorum call is ongoing, i would ask unanimous consent that it be ended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, last month we all learned with great sadness of justice antonin scalia's passing after nearly 30 years on the court. he would have turned 80 years old on friday, march 11. in recent weeks foremost on people's minds as they reflect

on justice scalia's legacy and his life is his dedication to the letter of the law, his respect for constitutional and statutory tests, his view that the u.s. constitution is a sacred document which must be read and adhered to. his decisions and opinions were aimed to follow the constitution wherever it took him, even if it may not have been to a place where he would agree politically. justice scalia not only understood the importance of not legislating from the bench, but he also cared deeply about the lesson being taught by the work of the court, and through his writings, his opinions, including his dissents, he taught us great lessons. all of this is very important and relevant, ironically, as we

consider our role and path forward in the decision to fill his vacancy. instead, unfortunately, we've seen rhetoric and arguments which fly in the face of that dedication to the text, to the constitution, to statutory law and rules and following that letter. my esteemed democratic colleagues have taken to the senate floor. they have encouraged outside groups to storm committee rooms, all arguing that somehow there is a legislative or constitutional mandate that the senate have hearings, take a vote now, and not allow the american people to weigh in through the election. they argue that somehow the senate is constitutionally obligated to hold hearings and vote right now before the

election. but as justice scalia would surely point out, read the text, look at the constitution, look at all relevant statutes and rules. and that is not the case. it is clear otherwise. in fact, it's crystal clear. so, let's do that in homage to justice scalia. you know, he wrote many opinions arguing for exactly what i'm saying: read the clear language that's at issue, either in the constitution or a statute or whatever is at issue. and he wrote opinions against what before his time was rampant use of so-called legislative history, looking at the history of how a law was passed really to give people fodder to make it up as they go along and reach almost any conclusion and interpretation they wanted to. but justice scalia taught us -- and he had a real impact on the

court through his decisions -- that we need an unwavering commitment to statutory text as written. as he often said in so many different ways, legislative history is irrelevant when the statutory text is clear. in one opinion noted -- quote -- "if one were to search for an interpretative technique that on the whole was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history." close quote. and he said directly -- quote -- "our cases have said that legislative history is irrelevant when the statutory text is clear." close quote. well, again, that's a big part of his legacy and very relevant in this discussion about how the senate should fulfill its

duties. let's look at the text of the constitution and any relevant text, like our rules below the constitution. in the u.s. constitution, article 2, section 2, clause 2, says clearly -- quote -- "the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and the all other officers of the united states whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for and which shall be established by law." close quote. that's what it says on the issue. that's all it says on the issue. and those words are straightforward, and those words do not mandate a hearing or a vote in any certain time frame. now, it's very clear from the

founders and from numerous court decisions since then that within the constraints of those words, the senate sets its rules of how to proceed on all senate matters, including confirmations. and so another very important and very clear text that we should read word for word and adhere to are the standing senate rules. the and senate rule xxxi states clearly, "when nominations shall be made by the president of the united states to the senate, they shall, unless otherwise ordered, be referred to appropriate committees; and the final question on every nomination shall be, "will the senate advise and consent to this nomination?" which question shall not be put on the cannel day on which the nomination is received nor on the day on which it may be reported by a committee unless

by unanimous consent." so, it only says when the vote cannot be taken. it doesn't say that a hearing has to happen or a vote has to be taken within a certain amount of time. and then another part of rule xxxi is even more direct on this point. "nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the senate by the president." close quote. so this is even more direct and makes crystal clear that there is no requirement of a hearing or a vote on any particular nomination in any particular time frame during a session. now again, that's very straightforward, very crystal clear, but the congressional

research service has a report which validates and confirms the obvious. and upon their review of all of this text, they say -- quote -- "a committee considering a nomination has four options. it can report the nomination to the senate favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation, or it can choose to take no action." close quote. and so they say the obvious from reading the relevant text. those are the options. there is no requirement for a hearing or for a vote within any certain time frame. now, there are other authorities -- i'll put that in air quotes -- which confirm this view and ironically those authorities i'm referring to are from democrats who are taking exactly the opposite view now. aboubut when the shoe was on the

other foot, they said time and time again there's no requirement to move forward on any senior time frame. the minority leader, harry reid, said nowhere in the constitution does it say the senate has a duty to give presidential nominees a vote. it says appointments shall be made with the advice and consent of the senate. that is very different than saying every nominee receives a vote. that's a direct quote. in june of 2003, senator patrick leahy -- he is significant because he is ranking member of the judiciary committee. he said clearly, "the constitution avoids the appointment power between the president and the senate. it says advise and consent, not nominate and rubber stamp." then even further back in june of 1992, then-chairman of the

judiciary committee, now vice president joe biden, argued for the need to set aside partisanship and work to bring unity forward in the senate by saying -- quote -- "president bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not name a nominee until after the november election is completed." close quote. he said that during a presidential election year, just like we're during -- in the midst of a presidential election year right now. and chuck schumer, another leading member of the judiciary committee, said much the same thing in the past, making crystal clear that there is no requirement. in fact, he said 18 months before the expiration of president bush's term -- so not during his last year but 18 monthmonths before the end of tt

term that the senate shouldn't confirm any bush nominee except in extraordinary circumstances. so it's very clear from their own words that there is no obligation to use any certain time frame, to use -- to have any absolute committee hearing or vote within a certain period of time. so then the question is, what is the best thing to do for the american people? i firmly believe the best thing to do for the american people is to put the american people in charge, to put them in the lead, to maximize their role, their power, and their vote. and that's what the opportunity of a major presidential election gives us. of course, if you have a vacancy early on in the term of a president, you're not going to have another big election for sometime. but that's certainly not the

case right now. we're in the midst of a huge election with enormous consequences for the future, and it's very clear that the choices -- whatever the final two choices may be -- would offer very different options in terms of the type of supreme court justice they would appoint. so i think we best serve the american people in almost all cases -- certainly in this case -- by maximizing their voice, their role, their power. they often feel absolutely shunned, put to the side, ignored by congress, by washington now. we need to put them in charge. and in this presidential election year, we have a unique opportunity to do that. that's certainly what i'm committed to doing. i can tell you, as i travel louisiana, the huge majority of my fellow citizens that i've

talked to agree with that approach. i just finished doing four town hall meetings in all different parts of the state. in a few weeks i'm going to do four more, all different parts of the state. that's not a scientific survey. but nobody came to those town hall meetings who didn't agree with that path forward, and the great majority of calls and e-mails and letters from my fellow louisiana citizens on this issue absolutely confirm and support that path forward. so let's put the american people in charge. they're crying for a voice. they're crying with frustration over not being listened to by washington. this is a major decision. let's put them in charge. let's let them lead in this presidential election year on this very important issue. of course, whoever is elected the next president will have a

big impact on our country. that person will serve for four, maybe eight years, make decisions that are enormous on a whole host of issues. but this appointment to the supreme court could have an even more lasting impact, could have an impact for decades to come. and it's even more important in that frame of mind, in that viewpoint to put the american people in charge, to maximize their role and their voice about what direction we should take. so many louisianans feel, as i do, that the court has strayed from justice scalia's proper philosophy of actually reading the constitution and reading statutory text and applying it as written. so many louisianans feel, as i

do, that they are making it up in many, many cases as they go along, that they're legislating from the bench, that they're using those clever techniques like looking to legislative history -- something justice scalia railed against -- as ammunition to really get to whatever end point they desire to get to. that's not the role of any court, certainly not the role of the supreme court. the supreme court should apply the constitution and the law as written, not make it up as they go along, not legislate from the bench, not get to some political end point through clever legal arguments, just as we in understanding our role should read the constitution, should read the senate rules, and not suggest what is clearly not the

case, that somehow there is a mandate to have a hearing, to have a vote in some set period of time. so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues to put the american people in charge. this is a big decision, and i think we will do far better putting them in charge than allowing some insider washington game to control and manipulate the process without hearing their voice, which we have every opportunity to properly hear through this important election this year. thank you, mr. president. with that, i have some housekeeping. mr. president, specifically, i have eight unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that

these requests be agreed to and that these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. vitter: and wit with that, mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i'm so pleased we are making some strong progress on the exreens addiction and -- comprehensive addiction and recovery act. i hope we will get this bill done within a day. it is very, very important especially to states in rural areas like the presiding officer's and mine. and i'm glad we're going to start making headway. today i'm here to talk about something else, and that is the importance of the u.s. relationship with canada. along with senator crapo, we cochair the american canadian interparliamentarian group and have been working in the

trenches on everything from soft wood lumber to the detroit windsor bridge crossing to issues of intellectual property to dairy, to beef. and suddenly with the arrival of prime minister trudeau, this work has gotten a little more glamorous, so we are excited about that and excited about the nation's interest, newfound interest in our important relationship with canada. in fact, canada is our number-one trading partner. there is so much business that goes on between the presiding officer's state and canada as well as my state and canada. prime minister trudeau is bringing a newfound interest in this work. many of our two countries' priorities -- national security, infrastructure, energy -- align closely. and during this visit, i expect that our relationship will deepen and we will hear more about how our two nations will work together on our shared priorities. we hope that they will discuss

hockey, something very important to minnesota and canada. a number of our hockey players actually have come from canada, and a number of the canadian hockey players have come from minnesota. but we think there's other important topics as well. first, i start with the economic relationship. it's an economic relationship that supports nine million u.s. jobs. canada purchases more goods from america than any other nation. i think people might not predict that if you ask what is the biggest purchaser of goods for a country in the world, and that answer is canada. canada is the number-one buyer of goods produced in 35 out of 50 states, including minnesota. last year canadians bought 376 billion dollars worth of goods made by american businesses. it's a two-way street. the u.s. imports more than $300 billion in canadian goods every year. over the years to enhance this

relationship, we have taken many important steps to improve the flow of travelers and goods across our common border. in the wake of september 11, we created a u.s. passport card which is a secure but less expensive and more convenient alternative to a traditional passport. we removed unnecessary double screening of baggage, a bipartisan bill that i passed with senator roy blunt of missouri, and then expanded the number of preclearance airports that allows american security personnel to be there in those airports. i think we're up to eight now. we've agreed to build a new bridge connecting windsor, ontario, and detroit, michigan, a source of of great concern. the bridge now has private ownership. huge lines, not a very good situation. and a new bridge is in the works, and we're very excited that our two countries work together at that. i want to acknowledge ambassador

durer, long-term ambassador from canada to the u.s., who worked on that with our two ambassadors. and i also wanted to acknowledge the newly named canadian ambassador, ambassador david mcnaughton who will continue the history of strong diplomatic relations between our countries. national security partnership also incredibly important. we share the longest border in the world with canada. obviously border yeeshes -- issues are important but canada along with nato have worked with us not only on afghanistan where they provided many troops, but also on the front line with isis they actually have trainers there, hundreds of trainers working on the front line. and i would be remiss not to mention them standing up to russian aggression in the ukraine. believe it or not, canada has a major ukrainian population, and they have been our friend in dealing with the ukraine as well. prime minister trudeau also has been a leader in welcoming

refugees to the country before, right after his election he showed up at the airport to greet syrian refugees. it's not just a symbol. they've actually brought in 25,000 syrian refugees during the last year and have pledged to take in 10,000 more this year, significantly more in total than the u.s. has been able to bring in. and we know the vetting process is incredibly important, but we do want to thank canada for taking part in what is a travesty internationally. they're working on combatting ebola and initiatives like power africa and working with us on the climate change numbers with our two countries working together. and by the way, working together with mexico, we form a very powerful trading bloc and we want to encourage that with our standards and other things that we do in terms of building electrical capabilities to allow us as a north american bloc, with a new day in north america,

as was agreed to between the three presidents of the country in the last few years to compete in the bloc in an increasingly competitive global economy including harmonizing emission standards and doing other work together. so, mr. president, as one of the cochairs of the u.s.-canadian interparliamentarian group, we welcome the new prime minister to washington. when i was sworn in as a u.s. senator in 2013, my friends and colleagues celebrated at the canadian embassy. i am the first person i have found to have had their swearing-in party at the canadian embassy. but i chose it to make a point that we should not be forgetting our number one trading partner, the only embassy for years draped in banners that read friends, neighbors, partners, allies. so many other countries do not acknowledge their friendship with the u.s. in a way that i think they should. canada does not hide it. canada is proud of it, and we

welcome the prime minister today. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. quorum call:

the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time on amendment number 3378 is expired. question occurs on amendment number 3374, offered by the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, for the senator from indiana, mr. donnelly. hearing no further debate, all those in favor say aye. all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question occurs on amendment number